Regardless who wins the presidential election of 2016, it is certain that insider dealings and conflicts of interest (or, in plain English, corruption) will remain integral components of the Washington political system. Those who have been tasked with serving the people use their tenure in office to enrich themselves and their families, and care nothing about the fate of those they are supposed to be serving.

One needs only to glance at the revelations about the Clintons. According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, former president Bill Clinton “earned” an incredible $105 million from giving speeches between the years 2001 and 2012. And, of course, the checks were the largest during the time when his wife was Secretary of State. He received, for example, between $500,000 to $1.4 million for various speaking engagements to foreign corporations.

But of course, all of these engagements were cleared by ethics lawyers beforehand, so all is well. Of course they were cleared. The elites investigate themselves, and never find themselves wanting. Of course the outcome would be far different if ordinary mortals were concerned. The problem has been going on for some time. Ronald Reagan accepted $2 million in 1989 for a speaking engagement in Japan.

Contrast this with the ethic of Harry Truman, who left the office of president with no house of his own and in near impoverishment; he spent the remainder of his days in Independence, Missouri, eating sardine sandwiches and playing cards. Or consider Theodore Roosevelt, who nearly killed himself with exertions of all types after he left office, including the exploration of an Amazonian tributary.

Public officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And there is no doubt that when a company is paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars, that politician is going to treat the company and its country favorably. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, control over the Clinton Foundation—which accepts contributions from foreign donors—will almost certainly pass to her daughter, thus ensuring that insider dealings with family members are added to the conflict of interest problems that already exist.

But this is how American politicians see themselves: they are the new royalty, and they need answer to no one, least of all us insignificant peons. Corruption has always existed and will always exist, but it is a matter of degree and scale. As things are now, the scale has gotten so far out of hand that drastic reforms need to be undertaken.

American politicians see the public as nothing but a source of contempt and derision. Clinton recently called half of the supporters of her rival Donald Trump “deplorable.” Which, of course, means that she views a large portion of the American public as “deplorable.” I can’t recall any similar example of a candidate attacking the supporters of a rival candidate. Attacking a rival candidate is one thing, and certainly expected, but attacking a huge segment of the population of one’s own country is something very different.

In the logic of the elites, there is one rule for them, and one rule for everyone else. They are entitled to enrich themselves and their families, and the rest of us are entitled to nothing.

Meanwhile, military planners take things one step further by openly preparing for armed insurrections in the United States. One of the most chilling articles to appear in recent memory in military circles—totally ignored by the mainstream press—was entitled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future. The article argues that in the near future, the military must be prepared to respond to domestic disturbances and civil insurrections. The following hypothetical is proposed. We may call it the “Darlington Scenario”:

The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated….The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises. Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits, small businesses cannot meet bankers’ terms to borrow money, and taxes on the middle class remain relatively high.

A high-profile and vocal minority has directed the public’s fear and frustration at nonwhites and immigrants. After almost ten years of race-baiting and immigrant-bashing by right-wing demagogues, nearly one in five Americans reports being vehemently opposed to immigration, legal or illegal, and even U.S.-born nonwhites have become occasional targets for mobs of angry whites.

In May 2016 an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the “tea party” movement takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council, and placing the mayor under house arrest. Activists remove the chief of police and either disarm local police and county sheriff departments or discourage them from interfering. In truth, this is hardly necessary….The militia members are organized and have a relatively well thought-out plan of action.

With Darlington under their control, militia members quickly move beyond the city limits to establish “check points” – in reality, something more like choke points — on major transportation lines. Traffic on I-95, the East Coast’s main north-south artery; I-20; and commercial and passenger rail lines are stopped and searched, allegedly for “illegal aliens.” Citizens who complain are immediately detained. Activists also collect “tolls” from drivers, ostensibly to maintain public schools and various city and county programs, but evidence suggests the money is actually going toward quickly increasing stores of heavy weapons and ammunition…

When the leaders of the group hold a press conference to announce their goals, they invoke the Declaration of Independence and argue that the current form of the federal government is not deriving its “just powers from the consent of the governed” but is actually “destructive to these ends.” Therefore, they say, the people can alter or abolish the existing government and replace it with another that, in the words of the Declaration, “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

While mainstream politicians and citizens react with alarm, the “tea party” insurrectionists in South Carolina enjoy a groundswell of support from other tea party groups, militias, racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, anti-immigrant associations such as the Minutemen, and other right-wing groups…

The mayor of Darlington calls the governor and his congressman. He cannot act to counter the efforts of the local tea party because he is confined to his home and under guard. The governor, who ran on a platform that professed sympathy with tea party goals, is reluctant to confront the militia directly. He refuses to call out the National Guard…

The article goes on to suggest ways that the chief executive can make use of the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act has undergone some renewal and modification in recent years, and there is little doubt that this will be the choice legal mechanism to keep the restless masses under control when the expected civil disturbances begin in the near future. As the article explains, the Insurrection Act is so vaguely worded that almost anything can fall under the category of “insurrection.”

What is interesting about the article is the choice of hypothetical used. Official “enemies” are those who have been denied economic opportunity and jobs, rather than the plunderers and parasites at the top who enriched themselves at the expense of their fellow-citizens. More than anything else, the Darlington Scenario provides a window into the mind of the elites: we exist to serve them and cheer on their policies.

Any expression of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs will be seen as “rebellion” or “insurrection” and will be dealt with accordingly. Of course, certain protected classes and ideologies will not fall under such scrutiny. One would be hard-pressed to find an article in a military journal about using force to contain riots or civil disturbances caused by violent social justice warriors, for example. That would involve inquiry into forbidden areas of political correctness.

The message is clear: there is one rule for elites, and another rule for the rest of us. The function of the public is to accept its marginalization and impoverishment with cries of joy. Where this will all lead, we will leave to the reader’s informed imagination.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

Starting in March, we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

154 Responses

I think Trump’s supporters should adopt the title “Coal People” for themselves. That has a kind of steampunk coolness about it. And it harkens back to the age when white people were in our ascendancy and we wanted to transform the world with fossil fuels to serve our purposes.

Yeah, this is why I’m open to an honest-to-God revolution. I don’t advocate bloodshed lightly, but at the same time, nothing is going to change for the better until these people answer for their actions.

And since they control the entire justice system, why bother to go through the charade and end up with more James Comeys?

I look at Duterte in the Philippines and I see what needs to happen here, albeit with a few tweaks. Yes, you run the risk of a dictatorship, but is that worse than the leftist shitshow that is literally destroying this country before our eyes?

When the president can disregard Congress and issue his own laws by fiat, and then use his influence to shield his buddies from justice, while punishing others for the exact same shit, are we really under any illusion that we don’t have a dictatorship?

Seriously, Obama kills itizens with drone strikes. He can send a team of heavily armed federal agents to your door with orders to kill. He would probably just drop people out of helicopters if he wanted to. But people think we have “democracy” because every four years we get to vote for a new establishment asshole who does the same thing.

“The message is clear: there is one rule for elites, and another rule for the rest of us. The function of the public is to accept its marginalization and impoverishment with cries of joy. Where this will all lead, we will leave to the reader’s informed imagination.”

Excellent article! Your thesis at the end drives your point home.

I’d add that really the elites have always enjoyed these benefits but in the past they could hide it better.

Now with the information age, real time news, and wikileaks and thus lots of whistle blowers, they’re feeling more threatened than ever as the economy no longer redistributes wealth but concentrates it..

This has scared them, rightfully so..

To most ROKers in the know, the “establishment” response is multi-faceted but clear with appropriate timelines for implementaton..

1) In the short term: discredit detractors.

Call them “racysts” “bigots” etc when they question anything you say. This aims to shut down any meaningful discussion before it get’s going on topics like “illegal immigration” “Structural deficits” or your own record of shady dealings. Best done through a fifth colmn like BLM whom are also mindless sock puppets..

2) Medium to long horizon: co-opt social/print/news media sources:

Get people to either self censor or you ban them entirely likeTwitter and Milo..or take away the comments sections when they don’t cheer on your socialist bs and hurt your feelings..

Removing pesky comments sections because of their “inapropriate comments” is well underway so that’s part of it.

Also lobbying the UN and EU or any orgnazation that will listen to ban any commentary, no matter how benign, not supporting “mass illegal immigration” or “hurt feelings” on social media.

The aim is to deplatform your opponenets entirely leaving only an echo chamber trumpeting govenrment achievments online and in the media rehardless of reality.

3) Long term, In processs but still a work in progres: support degeneracy

Make education more for indoctrination than learning. Import mass heathen illiterate refugees to dumb things down enough so nobody will questions your propaganda and terrible policies.

To this end abortion, homsexulaity, Globalization, and eventually paedophilia will be not only (or already are) accepted but legally protected.

There are some rays of hope like the BREXIT vote that shows but our enemies are crafty and have slowley but surely undermined us “thought criminals” so we have work to do.

**********************

What is to be done? We’ve written volumes on this site in comments.

For my part in private conversation, especially with young men, I always make it known that I’m “against all of it” (so called dprogressive ideas like gay rights) and explain my reasons clearly and logically..

I usually find that the issue with most men under 30 is they’ve rarely if ever heard contrary opinions, other than state propaganda like “abortion is cool” in schools, online etc and thus have no bearings in a discourse on ideas= certainly not Hegelian dialectic that many of us learned in high school..

I’ve been to countries in open revolt. They fight because they’re starving. Until the average American is starving, I think armed revolution makes for good banter and nothing more.
The Achilles Heel of big government is the monopoly on currency, which is why we go to war with everyone who threatens it. When you control means of exchange, you can engineer society to your [and your cronies’] liking.
The genius of the 21st Century will be the leader that creates a storage of exchange 100% independent of the central bank control-without being killed or denigrated as a tyrant.
Revenue will remain local. Industry will not be crippled by inflation. Government cannot keep track of where you spend and save your wealth. The welfare state slowly collapses under its own weight without stealing 33% of your annual salary.
A lot more 10th Amendment and a lot less 16th Amendment will reverse America’s fortunes for the better.

I’m no economist, but you still need currency to trade with internationally though. If it’s not the petro-dollar it will be some other currency or currencies – the Yuan / SDR seems to be what’s being chattered about as the Yuan’s improved status is supposed to come into effect this October. I would be interested to hear what possible counterfactuals there might have been to the rise of central banking. The (creation of the) Fed may have caused the Great Depression 90 years ago, but how would things have worked without those cheeky chappies on Jeckyll Island (or at the bank of England, etc etc)?

yes, at which point the bank system controls everybody absolutely. They will know everything you buy. They will determine whether you can exist. It would be a system of total control, which means it’s absolutely inevitable that they will try to introduce it.

Did you perhaps want me to mention barcodes and the book of revelation too?

at present though, you could beg, or borrow or steal. You could find a fiver down the back of a sofa or go looking for euro cents down where the drunks sing their Munich beer songs. Not in the future, when the Beast of Revelation sits behind every cashier’s desk at the bank

you sure that was a dream? But what’s wrong with being a bum…to a degree. You might die in your forties perhaps, but at least you’re not controlled by the elites, who think they know what’s best for you (i.e. for them)

Not saying anything’s wrong with that. I look, behave and sometimes smell like a bum. The freedom aspect is very alluring to me. What keeps me from it is not even cold nights so much; but the idea that I would have to beg people for money. Too much social anxiety for that shit.

I think the cold nights would be by far worse. Begging would probably only be hard to do until you did it. Having said that in eastern europe I’ve notice many beggars almost prostrate themselves, sometimes for hours. That is hard, both physically and I think in terms of pride. Social anxiety would probably be the least of it

They already know everything you buy, every time you swipe that card or use that cards number on the Internet. Less and less
people carry cash. More people buyin things on the net, there is no way to do that with cash. Peoples paychecks are electronically deposited and electronically withdrawn. Easy to track almost everything you do.

Many people, the most intelligent actually, still have real money and assets and still perform their important transactions, in the material world. I think that’s the segment of the population they want to control ie. you wouldn’t go to the gun store to buy a pistol or ammunition with your credit card would you?

Very true! Most money in existence exist as a number on a screen. This is due to the fact money can be created from nothing. The only “store of value” is the promise of the federal government.

Back in the day, money’s “store of value” was precious metals which was why you were able to exchange your cash for gold. I do believe that bitcoin dumping is due to lack of “store of value”…

The biggest barrier is finding an asset that is always in demand, not easily seized by government, and retains steady value. Once someone can implement and perfect this, I think fiat will have a hard time keeping up with digital currency in the same way big retail has had trouble keeping up with digital amazon.

To the Chinese’ credit, they’ve been buying gold at an incredible rate, which is ideal for “storage of value”. To be considered money, a currency needs 3 things:
-A store of value [Can it be exchanged for a tangible asset? Gold, real estate, etc. and retain its’ value against inflation.]
-A medium of exchange [Will it be accepted by vendors in lieu of bartering?]
-A unit of account [Can it be converted to foreign currency?]
Personally, I think currency will become digital. Currently, digital currencies already serve as a “medium of exchange” and “a unit of account”.
The problem lies in having a “storage of value”. When bitcoin prices soar, investors trade into fiat dollars for profit because they bitcoin are nothing more than numbers on a screen.
The genius step will be implementing an exchange not into dollars, but into tangible assets upon demand without central control. Such an asset that is always in demand, not easily seized by government, and retains steady value.
And that is the billion dollar question. No pun intended.

the chinese buying up gold is interesting, but I’m not sure anybody really knows how much there really is, or how much percentage wise they have. I think there’s been some talk of gold being used in currency (like silver) (as opposed to a gold standard as there use to be). I don’t really understand how you could have a digital currency that also reflected to use your terms ‘a storage of value’ though. The only thing that seems certain is that there is change on the horizon, and it may not necessarily be for the good

Attaching a “store of value” to digital currency is the biggest barrier preventing it from taking off. I’ve heard of gold, silver, platinum, real estate, and crazy things like cocaine and vodka all being attached to currency.
Once this link is found, the central banks and government will no longer have monopoly over exchange, and be much weaker in their attempts at social engineering.
That is, if the world doesn’t go up in a WWIII mushroom cloud first.

the US losing it’s predominant position as ‘the’ reserve currency for the world is dangerous for the world in the short term at least, particularly to the extent that influence flows to a rival power (rather than a more distributed multi-polar system). Maybe we need something closer to the ancient system of barter. I imagine there would be dangers in such a system – gold, silver hoarding doesn’t really matter, but if you think about ‘oil’ in the 20th century, that was in a sense a real store of value, but it made things worse rather than better. Some have suggested that water would effectively replace oil (the Evian-dollar?) – but that would be even more disastrous. I like gold, to be honest

The harm the Fed has done to the economy was relatively minor 90 years ago, and has a cumulative and exponential effect. The value of the dollar is about 3% of what it was pre-fed. To get to that level of devaluation only requires a small amount stolen every year, but compounded, through “inflation” or decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar.

As far as how things would have worked out without the Fed, are you implying that international trade would not have been possible without a fiat currency? Did trade begin in the 20th century?

I’m certainly not pro-central banks. Quite the opposite. I’m just wondering how the world would have looked without fractional reserve banking. I’m not an economist so I don’t have strong opinions to share, but the current system seems designed to create massive credit / debt, which is why I think we’re in the situation we’re in. Clearly that has produced huge instability – cycles of boom and bust, bubbles etc. but if we’re going to supersede that or come up with a counter-factual it surely wouldn’t hurt to see what the alternative is, for example if banks could only lend out something closer to what they physically had as savings ……can you even imagine going back to that from fiat money printing of value from effectively nothing?

Well for one, things would be far, far cheaper. This chart shows average home prices in the US. From 1870 to 1960 prices were relatively level. Then they skyrocketed (Nixon closed the gold window in 1971) and as credit really took off post-2000, the growth became exponential.

When one is buying with credit, one can not only *afford* much more home, because instead of a fixed amount of savings (ie either you have saved $30,000 for a home, or you have not and must settle for a smaller one), credit requires only that one can make a rather low threshold of a monthly payment (the government also stretched out loans to 30 years, when private banks never made loans with terms longer than 10 years for various reasons), but demand for housing is increased, because people who do not have the discipline to save $20 or $30k for a house need only save perhaps $500 for their first mortgage payment, and are then given a house. When more people are buying homes, homes, being a limited resource, increase in price. In fact, as consumers are using credit to buy even everyday items, which are beyond their means, the price of everything is increased by the use of credit.

The use of credit causes demand to increase, which raises prices. Without credit, only people who saved enough to pay for a home would be able to

Second, there would be far less turmoil and unemployment. Work would be more steady. Roughly the same number of people would be purchasing homes each year, and as the population grew, there would be a similar increase in the demand for new housing (ie let’s assume a 3% population growth rate; this implies 3% more homes should be constructed to accommodate the growth). And absent some huge impact like WW2, which took men out of the homebuying market for 4 years, and then dumped them back into it with money to buy a house, that’s what happened. Credit introduces cycles of overconsumption (making loans to people who would not qualify to even rent an apartment, and who have little to no skin in the game) followed by periods of retraction where banks are unwilling to lend.

[There are other factors here that complicate things. Really, there were 3 phases of price expansion. Phase I was women entering the workforce in the 50s/60s. Phase II was use of credit cards in the 70s/80s. Phase III was use of home mortgage debt in the 90s/00s. Each of these contributed to higher demand and higher prices]

Just look at that graph and realize that for the first 90 years, home prices were level. Now look at the graph, and the trend of where it’s headed, and tell me what home prices will look at in 1970 + 90 = 2060.

Interesting, and as far as I can tell solid analysis. Central / fractional reserve banking has produced a great deal of instability, through the kind of cycles of boom and bust and poorly constrained borrowing and over-consumption that it encourages. I would say it has made for a unstable world (it appears to have been responsible for the great depression, the kind of economic collapse that on the surface it was set up to prevent!) but at the same time I don’t doubt it’s had a huge impact on the landscape. The world runs on hot-air – credit, confidence, bluff – until the bubble bursts – but at the same time it is probably responsible for much of the furious pace of change of the last hundred years in particular. If one accepts that and factors it into the equation that kind of instability seems to be built into the system, rather than reflecting – as economists tend to regard it – some kind of design fault i.e. it’s only a design fault if stability, steady progress, societies reproducing themselves on a staid and predictable basis, is the goal i.e it’s certainly part scam, but perhaps not entirely.

To be honest I’m not 100% what I think about such things. Your example of property prices is a good one. My family bought a home some 45 years ago, which we quite recently sold. The value went up by about 45 times in that period, yet after we sold – a few years back – that same house went up by another 55%. As we didn’t entirely exchange like with like that represented a loss of real-value. Who benefits? In the UK and many other areas many people have done very well out of this, but most are priced out. The banks meanwhile effectively own most property through their title on the register. Someone should certainly be studying how banks benefit from such shenanigans, but as in the good times at least the benefits are quite widely distributed there probably isn’t much incentive to do that.

It’s certainly got to the stage though when reform (dismantlement? replacement?) of the central banking system should be at the very top of every country’s political agenda. Basket case economies, like Greece and (for a while) Spain could have been useful here

Your schema for “3 phases of price expansion” seems about right. It’s time that every feminist had to take on board the reason her every whim is pandered too.

Be careful in looking at real estate gains as “beneficial.” Considering that we all need real estate (a home to live in) the only way to benefit by skyrocketing prices would be to sell real estate and no longer buy it.
Today I’m paying almost as much in property taxes every year as my grandparents paid to *purchase* a piece of land outright. If I can sell this home for double what I paid for it in a few years, that’s relatively meaningless, because unless I flee the country and take my money with me, I will need to use the proceeds of that sale to buy another house, one that has also doubled in price in that same time. In the meantime, property taxes, insurance, and other related expenses scale up as the nominal (not real) price of the house increases.
What I’m not so sure about, is that as we have exhausted those three shots in the arm, and I don’t know if the current credit economy can continue, and for how long.

I was pretty much agreeing with you rather than contradicting you, but pointing out that many have done what you describe – sold up and moved out to cheaper areas – in the UK this has generally meant selling in London and going anywhere else. What that means is that even if the majority are losing out by all this in real terms – home-ownership has been decreasing by and large – there are still enough beneficiaries from the ponzi scheme. In fact I’d say you can lose out in the way you describe and still find yourself dazzled by the cash in your hand…at least until you come to buy.

There seems to be a consensus at the moment that all of this can’t go on forever – that there has to be some kind of reset. But it’s like watching a zombie flick. The system may be dead, but it keeps shuffling along and being propped up its administrators – in other words it is the walking dead, currently on series 7 I think

Yes Sir. It comes down to implementing a “store of value”. So far, no one has come up with the perfect tangible asset that is always in demand, not easily seized by government, and retains steady value. In time perhaps.

Gold evolved to be a currency; it wasn’t dictated to be currency. It is universally recognized because there are specific principles of money and gold fits them all well. That doesn’t make gold the only currency or the best currency; it’s simply the one that humanity has universally acknowledged as valuable for the longest period of time.

Gold does have some specific uses, such as being metallic, but soft enough that one can modify it without needing industrial equipment, so it was one of the first metals that was manipulated by man. It is highly useful in electronics, and we are certainly in the electronic age (though it is inferior to copper in many uses, which has the benefit of being cheaper). But gold does not rust or decay or break down when exposed to water. It cannot be destroyed in fire (unless we are talking about superheated 911 magic fires) and it retains its form for hundreds of years. It is extremely durable.

If we were to choose another item and transition to that, fine with me, I say, but there are no better options on the horizon.

Bread and circus…
How much bigger would the Tea Party and Occupy movements been had Congress not worked so hard to end the NFL, NBA, and NHL lockouts during 2011-2012? No sports season equals a lot of free time to think.

Exactly correct sir. Bread and circus is the whole game and it has really be perfected here.

A man can get a job for 40k/year and raise a family, have that dream of home ownership, have a car and a huge tv to watch the game on and go out to dinner once a week and have some beers after work and shoot the shit and wear his NFL jersey and complain about his team and send his kids to college blah blah blah

When tea party or occupy person says “let’s storm the castle” they will find an overweight, soulless creature shrugging back at them and saying “eh, I’m going to go to the bar on Sunday for the free pizza and get a buzz and flirt with the cute bartender instead”

Wow, I shouldn’t be shocked at the panning the camera immediately away from you when you started to make important points, but that’s fucking bullshit. I agree, the Occupy movement was very successfully infiltrated and subverted. As was the tea party.

If you’re ever interviewed, you have to take total control of the conversation and not allow gaps for studio editing. Often times, they’ll edit interviewers to look dopey. When I met the execs at Fox, they were all burnt out by how cut throat the industry is.

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of people interviewed, and dated a tv chick for a while, and you did an awesome job. I’m surprised they kept you on for that long, really. Going live, there is little they can do other than let you dominate them, if you are prepared to do so. You did. Kudos, man.

It’s hard for me not to get pissed at their stupid comments though.. I mean there you are talking about something you are very passionate about and all she can say is “But there are a lot of people who disagree with you, I mean just look at this cop and all the taxpayer money being wasted.”

People disagree with everything. People will disagree that we should have public schools or that roads should be paved. What the fuck is your point? How about making a comment relevant to the issue at hand instead of dismissing it with a weak “not everyone agrees with you.”

And the stupid “you shouldn’t express this opinion because look at the waste it’s causing by diverting police here.” First of all, free expression isn’t limited because some bureaucrat decides what you are saying is dangerous and controversial, and that police should be sent to monitor the situation as others are hearing your point and it is resonating.

Second, something tells me she didn’t question the war you were sent to fight with the same tenacity: “but not everyone agrees we should invade a foreign sovereign nation… but think of how much money will be wasted there”. Fuck her.

Thank you Sir.
The interviewers seek timid individuals but are at a loss for words when they come across an articulate and aggressive personality.
For every video of MSM crushing a protestor, there is film on the cutting room floor of the network getting crushed by an articulate guest speaker.
Guess which one makes the evening news? The Fox exec I’m acquainted with, his entire job consists of rooting out unfavorable interviews on behalf of the network.

Yikes. Scary shit. I have no desire to see any social change as this society is working out pretty damn well for me. Not sure the occupy history but they were really a bothersome group here in New York and j was all for zukati park to be stormed by swat teams and the people in it to be strung up.

If there was an earlier less socialist, lest hipster iteration I don’t know. I’m an old yuppie, a corporate guy and I really enjoy my life. I saw OWS movement as a bunch of lazy fuckers who wanted me to foot the bill for their stupidity and call me an asshole while I did it.

Like I said, if there was an earlier and saner iteration I don’t know.

I don’t even know if there was a local occupy movement in my city. I saw a few people protesting one day downtown. But the way I viewed it is simply the class problems in America. You are lucky, to be a yuppie in NYC with a good stable well paid job. I am in a similar situation, although my industry is shrinking, and I wonder how much long I will be able to live as upper middle class.

The shrinking middle class is a huge thing, and indeed most people I know are either don’t-have-to-work rich or living-paycheck-to-paycheck poor. The middle class was basically what made America America. The people who worked their factory jobs and had enough free time and disposable income left over at the end of the week where their choices of what to do with said time and money shaped the culture of the nation.

If I was advising an 18 year old kid today about how to make a nice $80,000 / year (double that for NYC) career, I’m not sure where I would point him. There are fewer and fewer options all the time. I guess medicine will continue to be paid well, but I can’t imagine working in a fucking hospital.

Plus engineering (while it requires a good, logical mind, and strong skills in math and science) is full of nerdy betas, and there are quite a bit of these. Also, as infrastructure and road maintenance and new construction of bridges and big projects is so poor in this country, the budgets needed for new projects which will fund engineers salaries are troubling. That being said, there will always be a need for engineers. Just remember who you are competing with (and yes, especially when facing severe budget shortfalls, firms will turn to H1-B employees).

Remember, it was also the American middle class whose greed and ignorance toppled the system.

I wasn’t lucky to be a yuppie really. I always knew that’s what I wanted. I wanted to make money and go to parties and do that yuppie shit. The “y” stands for young so I guess I’m not one any more, but the dream never dies. Going into academia was my biggest mistake, but quickly rectified once I got into the real world.

I don’t know what I would advise an 18 year old either. I think if they have the chops for it, construction management is a good way to make bank but you have to be part business man part laborer and part gangster and be able to deal with billionaires and demolition guys equally well.

I think becoming a lawyer and specializing in faggot divorce is probably a solid idea and I have always believed that finance, if you are sharp enough, is the way to go for big dough. Other than that? Beverly Hills plastic surgeon is a pretty nice gig

Good advice. Actually I’ve seen people clean up with they specialize in faggy lines of work. There is a local guy who I suppose is gay who is the realtor for all the gays around here. They have good incomes, and can afford good housing. Or often buy in shitty areas and fix them up and then sell for big bucks, and the realtor makes money twice.
Faggot divorce is going to be an awesome growth industry!

yes. Fagvorce will be huge. Two people each with a 6 figure income and some slanty eyed baby which shares genetic material with neither of them in a bitchapalooza? Lawyers who make this a specialty will fucking clean up.

My neighbor is in construction Management and as we dog sit for him on occassion, we see him occassionally and he looks like one of the extras from the “Walking Dead.” I assumed he was into the gay night club scene and heavy drugs, but that wasn’t the case.

I heard the NYC crowd got rowdy… We Angelinos are a more peaceful tribe. jk.
The Tea Party and Occupy movements taught me there is always a need for merit based hierarchy. If you allow everyone into an organization, it will sink to the lowest common denominator as you witnessed.
The more I think about revolution, the more I realize it is the bottom caste simply wanting to become the new oppressor. Evolution is superior in the sense that if you have a better idea, it will take root without the use of force.

While I am far from a global elite I have a C Suite job in New York City and live a pretty good life. The revolution wants to over turn shit and make me suffer. I wish they would just take the government handouts I pay for and say thank you and let me get back to bedding beautiful women and drinking expensive scotch

I usually get paid approximately $6k-$8k every month on the internet. For those of you who are prepared to work easy computer-based task for 2h-5h daily at your house and make good salary while doing it… Test this work http://2.gp/G8zm

Wow, sounds like what happened to the evil tea party early on- had blacks and hispanics showing up, then, as if by magic, the dudes in the white hoods starting showing up, blacks/hispanics slowly started to distance themselves…Im sure that was a natural thing, not planned at all…

I think (most) movements start with moderates. Then as it gains steam, it attracts radicals and anarchists looking for a good time. The media, owned by the state, wants to preserve the status quo and focuses solely on the radical aspect.
I witnessed a Tea Party rally and they were interviewing a hard core skin head while the rest of the crowd resembled everyday, hard working people. Media is full of dirty tricks.

Well done in LA. You may want to study ways to come across more effectively in media- like talking slower and more calmly. And simplifying your sentences into soundbites. What you said was right on, but how you say it has a huge effect on how much impact it has. The great communicators (whether left or right, good or bad) speak slowly and very simply. Good examples of power communicators: Reagan, MLK, Clinton (bill not hill), Churchill, JFK.

The white supremacist groups were collapsing under the weight of their own stupidity about two decades ago. The federal government stopped that collapse with its informants and under covers running the groups. If I recall the articles correctly at one point it was just a bunch of feds in some of the groups seeing who they could lure into them.

I do too. Although I’m pissed at them for getting rid of pizza night. Every Wednesday night they had $10 pizzas. I’d bring a girl, grab a bottle of wine, we’d eat a pizza and drink the bottle, perhaps grab another if things were going well, and it was an awesome first date place.

I had a regular girl I would bring along for social proofing if I didn’t have a date lined up that week. And then they got rid of it, and I’m not going to pay the regular price of $18 or whatever to sit in a grocery store and eat a pizza. Man there are some hotties in there though!

Insightful post and I agree with you in full, however..”Government cannot keep track of where you spend and save your wealth.”

There are rumblings to change that through the elimination of currency and force the use of electronic banking instead which will leave a trail of what you purchase and where you store your “money.” Makes it easier to deduct taxes and freeze your account if you fall outside the graces of the state. Watch for it. It will be sold to the public as a means to “better stop terrorism” or go after rich “tax cheats”, but it is simply another control mechanism.

You bring up a great point.
3rd party tumblers make it exponentially harder to trace an online account and would need to be constantly updated to remain one step ahead of federal encroaching… Unfortunately, this isn’t 100% guaranteed.
The only alternative I see to cryptocurrency is local issued currency, similar to the “Worgl Miracle” of 1933. They literally rebuilt the town in 18 months debt free at the height of the depression.

Cryptocurrency is accepted worldwide. Governments do not like it because they cannot track and tax your savings. Rather than DC [Rome in your case] collecting 33% of all your earnings via income tax, that money remains in your account for you to spend on local goods and services.
A real time example would the the Worgl Miracle of 1933. They issued debt free currency and literally rebuilt the entire town in 18 months at the height of the depression. It was shut down by the Austrian central bank. I’m advocating a decentralized, online version of that, which would be astronomically harder for the government to shut down.

Even by 14th Century standards, selling out one’s own country was considered lowest of the low. In the “Inferno”, Dante placed corrupt politicians in the 8th circle of hell. (9th circle being considered the absolute worst).

“I can’t recall any similar example of a candidate attacking the supporters of a rival candidate. Attacking a rival candidate is one thing, and certainly expected, but attacking a huge segment of the population of one’s own country is something very different.”

You have a short memory. Mitt Romney brushed off nearly half the nation in 2012.

“In the logic of the elites, there is one rule for them, and one rule for everyone else. They are entitled to enrich themselves and their families, and the rest of us are entitled to nothing.”

The twentieth century has been described as involving a managerial revolution – basically a revolution on the quiet, which was nonetheless as profound as the more obvious kind. As the world has got more complex, it has also got more technocratic, and it is the administrators of this technocracy who have taken over, at least at the second tier – the super-elite 1% of the 1% are still there sucking everybody’s blood – but the technocracy provides the intellectual, and managerial elite who increasingly believe they have the right to govern things, because they have all the knowledge, wisdom etc. Actually they have zero wisdom, but they do have a lot of knowledge. People like Leo Strauss have given them the kind of a political philosophy they needed to justify their contempt for the lower orders, and their willingness to deceive everybody that they are living in a democracy rather than a technocracy / cryptocracy

My problem is not so much that the elites exist – they do exist, and always have, in every society that has ever existed on this planet, even the most facially egalitarian communist ones. They also will always exist, and it is naive to think otherwise. The real rub for me is that here, in theory, the elites are supposed to be subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and the pathway to get to the elite stratus is supposed to be open to anyone willing to put in the effort to do so. In practice, people like the Clintons have spent decades rigging the system in their favor so that both of those things are no longer true. Hillary’s blatant violation of all kinds of security and corruption laws speaks for itself. But I saw an article today speculating that if it ends up that her health problems force her to drop out of the race, the Dems may just substitute Chelsea in her place. Talk about slamming the door shut to those outside the current circle!

I had not heard of this military plan, but I have to express my skepticism at its probability of success. It is one thing to make these plans when all is relatively good for the average person – and as bad as things are, they are still pretty good. No one is starving, no one is freezing, most people outside of criminal circles are not in any real physical danger most of the time. Under such conditions, it is easy to send a platoon of young Marines in to crack down on some whackjobs who seize a municipality. But it is a different calculus entirely when everyone feels the pain, and those Marines are being asked to attack a group standing up for ideals that they may very well support. To me, that is the one genius of the way we have organized our military. Because we initially mistrusted each other, we eventually set it up so that units would be drawn from everywhere, and intermixed with all classes and races to prevent the type of infighting that we had to overcome during the Revolution, our time under the Articles of Confederation, and intermittently the time up through and including the Civil War. But what that has done is created a system where you interact with people from all over and start to see them as fellow citizens, not as others. It’s no longer tribal outsiders from South Carolina who need to be brutally brought to heel. It’s “five guys in my unit are from South Carolina, and they say this shit is different than what we’re being told, and it actually sounds a lot like this stuff we think in North Dakota, or Northern California, or Vermont, etc…. I’m not going to go kill my buddy’s family over this.” Then people refuse orders. Then, when threatened, they desert en masse, taking weapons and equipment with them. And that’s how a real revolution starts – when the elites overplay their hand.

it’s not just the fact of getting paid for speeches but the issue of by whom and with what effect. Goldman’s Sachs has given enormous sums to the Clinton Foundation for Hillary’s speeches. Is that therefore the method whereby they buy influence once she’s president?

No, they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. It’s just a coincidence that well over half of the private individuals that Hillary met with during her tenure as Secretary of State were large donors to the Clinton Foundation. They weren’t buying access or favors with those donations…

By the way, I think you’re making an unwarranted assumption there– have you ever seen or heard a recording of one of these speeches that she reportedly gave? Or even seen a transcript? What makes you believe that she ever gave any speeches to (((Goldman Sachs)))?

surely there must be a record of speeches she made and which they paid for? If there weren’t that would be colossal fraud. Oh, but I suppose that’s exactly what the Clinton Foundation is all about though isn’t it?

Oh, there’s a public record– dates of the alleged speeches and amounts paid. It’s just interesting that no video, audio, or transcripts have been released by either the Clintons or the banksters. Could be just that they don’t want the content of the speeches disclosed, of course, but who knows…

I don’t see the content as mattering. The “speech” is merely a loophole that allows a bribe to be paid. Kind of how filming a sex act is a loophole that makes prostitution legal (then it becomes porn).

I think it is “just the fact of getting paid.” Why would I possibly want to pay for a former president to speak (unless at a college graduation or something) unless I am going to benefit in some way? The only explanation is that there is quid pro quo. Otherwise, any payment, above a nominal fee of a few thousand dollars to cover expenses and transport, would never happen.

well you sometimes get gala dinners or whatever where tickets costs hundreds or thousands a head. In such a situation, the organisers of a speech might get there money back or thereabouts. But did Goldman Sachs get 700 thousand in ticket sales to hear Hillary’s screeching blackboard voice

The problem with using the U.S. Army or Marine Corps to put down a civil insurrection like the Darlington Scenario is that many (if not most) of those troops are just as right-wing as the rebels themselves.

Trump is leading among members of the military…by a lot, and even more among veterans.

If someone had ordered me to go put down a rebellion led by a veteran, and mostly manned by veterans, most of my old battalion would say “FTS…thats a local police matter” and mutiny.

That’s why we didn’t use Federal Troops in Waco, or other major insurrections led by conservative groups. Federal Troops are usually used in putting down left-wing insurrections, like the LA Riots or the Kent State protests.

I hope that is true. But federal troops were used in Waco. It was a team of FBI and ATF agents who were armed similarly to an army.

Remember that Hitler also doubted that his federal troops would follow orders, so Sturmabteilung (SA) troops were used to overtake and control the army. And then the Schutzstaffel (SS) was created to supercede the SA, many of whom were killed or imprisoned once they completed their usefulness, as the SS took over in the Night of the Long Knives. So, even considering your personal experience in one single group of federal troops may be true, consider that there are plenty of automaton drones (think anyone in the TSA) who would follow orders to a tee without question. Come to think of it, there was a request recently that the TSA be armed….. The TSA are federal agents. And soon could be armed federal agents.

I was extremely surprised we didn’t see a similar thing happen with that rancher Cliven Bundy out west. I suspect if we didn’t already have multiple wars going on overseas, which partially satiated the government troops’ desire for killing, it would have ended in a bloody battle. The rancher was practically indefensible, whereas the Waco guys were just really fundamentalist Christians obsessed with minutae in the Bible, but mostly decent people overall.

>If someone had ordered me to go put down a rebellion led by a veteran, and mostly manned by veterans, most of my old battalion would say “FTS…thats a local police matter” and mutiny.

“Woah now! We’ll murder women and children to protect Israel any day of the week, but an order to kill a group of white terrorists attacking the government? Hold up now… we only signed up to shoot the brown ones!”

Your patriotic zeal is appreciated, but we all know it isn’t true. All enemies, foreign and domestic. You’d follow orders.

some would follow orders and dont give a shit. Others would follow orders but make sure they are doomed to failure. Again others would simply get “sick” and then are the ones who would join the insurrection.

Thats why the EU is building an EU army. So they can send romanians into france and french into greece and germans into spain etc. Soldiers are humans and many DO care for their own people even if they are professional fighters and killers when it comes to muslim/brownish/ghettoscum folks.

I have heard nothing of this disturbing Darlington plan before. Remember the “operation Jade Helm” which was a drill throughout Texas and the surrounding areas for the US military to handle domestic disturbances a few months ago?

This got me thinking about the name. The names of military operations are chosen for a particular reason, ie Desert Storm = blow shit up in the desert. Operation Magic Carpet = return displaced peoples after WW2 to their home nations. Operation Urgent Fury = things going poorly domestically, we need to blow shit up immediately overseas to create a Wag the Dog effect. Operation Eagle Claw = reach in and extract Iranian hostages (failed). Operation Rolling Thunder = drop so many bombs over Vietnam that it appears like a thunderstorm. Operation MK Ultra MK=mind control. Operation Valkyrie = Overthrow Hitler and take over (Hitler loved Wagner, who wrote Flight of the Valkyries). Operation Mockingbird = turn the media into controlled voices of the government. Project Stargate = look into some weird sci fi stuff like remote viewing.

So what does Jade Helm mean? Jade = a green Asian rock. Helm is the steerage of a vessel. Does this mean an Asian / Chinese takeover of the US? I’m not predicting this, and I’m not trying to be paranoid or fearful, but I find that as a quite bizarre choice of names for a domestic military operation.

We do not need the farmer, says the sheep. Without the farmer, nobody would steal our wool or eat our children.

Who cares what the fucking sheep thinks? Sheep are beeing owned and they are only allowed to live because they profit the farmer. If they would not provide wool or meat, there is no reason to let them exist.

And now go to the bathroom kurt9 and look into the mirrior. Can you see the sheep staring back at you?

Dudes, I went to the site Alternet like always to remind the SJWs that they are literally Hitler and got this instead:

” We’re in this together

Independent media is more important than ever. Without our perspective, good sense, and a far more accurate narrative of what is happening in America, our nation would be even more quickly spiraling toward disaster.

AlterNet depends on you to provide us the support to push back against Trump violence and the awful enabling role-played by corporate media. Please keep us economically healthy by making a contribution to our Fall fundraising campaign.

Please support our work by making a 100% tax-deductible contribution using the form below.”

Nothing will happen. Politicians and regular people are corrupted. Everybody seeks comfort and wealth. From the bottom to the highest level. Just goals change when going higher on the ladder. People will keep looking how to have more or better than their neighbor across the street. I think people should shove their asses with values they talk about. There is one value in this world now: MONEY. Nothing else. In my opinion it is better to be heartless rich motherfucker that everybody respects and fears and even then not give a fuck about that than a poor or middle class citizen living by all bullshit values that great philosophers or anybody talks to soothe their pain of existence and somehow rationalize their own bullshit style of living, failure to make more money and better themselves as person. Even those great figures throughout history are corrupted deep inside, just less than others. Deal with it, join the elites, hide your wealth, personality, better yourself, use powertalk, deceit everybody about yourself and do not trust anybody, even your own damn family. Never talk about money with anybody. The less people know than you the better for you. This is my current worldview and I find it pessimistic but hey, who said the red pill is sweet.

Reckon why the enemy in study’s like that have to be “right wing extremists” like the tea party? Really, what extremist viewpoints have the tea party espoused? I don’t recall the last time a bunch of “right wing extremists” burned down a few city blocks and police cars or went around shouting fuk da po-leece.
A lot of those right wing people are pissed off but, at the same time they have a lot to lose, whereas most of left wingers usually found at riots have nothing to lose.

The Establishment/The Powers That Be/The Man determine who the enemy is. The enemy doesn’t actually have to be violent or even powerful, they are nothing but a tool that the groups above use to stoke fear in the ranks of the “normals”. Today, we’re Goldstein.

Obama’s kickbacks are nothing compared to the criminal enterprize and history of corruption and (((coincidental))) fortunes the Clintons have been blessed with over the years. It still doesn’t matter. No one but a tiny minority of voices even cares. The Democrats especially are more blameless than Black Lives Matter; you could catch them with a smoking gun and a murdered intern at their feet and they’d still swear they dindu nuffin wrang.

The United States has become so apathetic and disenfranchised with our politicians, so comfortable with lying and corruption, we simply accept it as the norm. Finding out a politician is in bed with the banking elite while giving handjobs to corporate interests is simply expected. We wouldn’t have it any other way, because you can’t trust a politician that doesn’t have “”””experience.”””

This movement has accelerated over the last 8 years and is getting worse. Look at the hypocritical Never Trumpers in the media. They fear for their elite status and therefore would rather sacrifice this nation to Clinton and her special interest greed than vote for what is actually best for this nation. This election has shown stronger than ever what hypocrites the vast majority of the media, celebrities and politicians are. They don’t care for you or me. They only care for themselves and their special donors.

0

0

Top 5 Most Popular Posts

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

For the month of January, we are running a promotion where we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

ROK Donation Drive

If you’re getting value from ROK, consider making a donation through the Roosh Booster Club to help us publish better articles and compensate our writers. Your donation is crucial in the face of Silicon Valley’s cockblocking campaign against us. Click here to learn full details.

Flagship ROK Shirt Has Landed

After many months of delay, we have launched Red Kings Shop to provide you with ROK apparel that will Kratomize your testosterone levels, massively increase the size of your penis, and make you the most beloved shitlord in your city. Click here for launch details.